LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



UNITEB STATES OF AMERICA. 



THE 



RELATION OF THE EPISCOPACY 



TO THE 



GENERAL CONFERENCE, 



^rv'% 



/ 

BY TKHE late 



BISHOP W. L. HARRIS, D.D., LL.D. 



Ar- 20 iii^B 



V//\c^ '■■ 



KEJV YORK: PHILLIPS &= HUNT. 
CINCINNA TI: CRANSTON b" STOWE. 



K) 



B6 



THB LIBEART 
low COHGRBSA 

WAfHINQTOir 



^.^^ 






Copyright, iS88, by 
PHILLIPS cS: H UN 
New York. 



PREFACE 



O EVER AL years ago tlie substance of this 
^^ book was given by the late Bishop Harris 
to the faculty and students of Drew Theo- 
logical Seminary in the form of lectures. 
The lectures seemed to all who heard them 
so clear and convincing that their publica- 
tion was immediately suggested. We have 
reason to believe that Bishop Harris had 
revised the manuscript for publication before 
his death. At our request it has been placed 
in our hands by Mrs. Harris, and we have car- 
ried it through the press. Very few verbal 
changes have been made, and no changes what- 
ever affecting the sense. As an historical discus- 



4 Peeface. 

sion of the relation of the Episcopacy to the 

General Conference it will receive, as it 

deserves, the careful consideration of the 

Church. We commend it heartily to all 

Methodists. G. E. Crooks, 

S. F. Upham. 

Drew Theological Seminary, 
March 19, 1888. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTEB PAGE 

I. Historical 1 

II. What is Episcopacy ? 33 

III. The ElectioiT'Of Presiding Elders 65 



THE EPISCOPACY 



AND 



THE GENERAL CONFERENCE. 



CHAPTER I. 

HISTORICAL. 



THE history of Methodism in America, 
considered in its legislative and adminis- 
trative departments, very naturally divides it- 
self into ^ve periods, each marked by distinct- 
ive characteristics. 

The first period begins in the year 1766, when 
Philip Embury began preaching in New York, 
and continues to the Christmas Conference of 
1784, at which time the Church was formed 
into a distinct ecclesiastical organization. 

The second period begins with the organiza- 
tion of the Church and extends to near the 
close of 1792, when the first General Confer- 



8 The Episcopacy and 

ence of the Church was held, unless that be 
called a General Conference at which the Church 
was organized. 

The third period extends from 1792 to 1812, 
when the first delegated General Conference 
was held, in pursuance of a plan made to that 
intent by the General Conference of 1808. 

The fo mill ^eriodi extends from 1812 to 1872, 
when lay delegates were first admitted to the 
General Conference. By this action the com- 
position and constituency of the General Con- 
ference were materially modified, but no change 
was made in the scope of its authority or in its 
methods of administration. 

The fifth period extends from 1872 to the 
present time. 

During the first period Methodism in Amer- 
ica was closely identified with Methodism in 
England, not only in its doctrines, discipline, 
and purposes, but in its external form and gov- 
ernment. Mr, "Wesley, than whom the world 
has scarcely produced a greater or better man, 
ruled both preachers and people in all their re- 



The General Conference. 9 

lations to Methodism according to the dictates 
of his own judgment. In his conferences with 
his preachers he gave careful consideration to 
the opinions of others, and then decided every 
thing himself. Mr. Asbury was Mr. Wesley's 
first general "Assistant" in America, having 
been appointed to that office in 1771. Two 
years later he was superseded by the coming of 
Mr. Rankin, who was Mr. Asbury's senior both 
in years and in the ministry, and who from his 
intimate association with Mr. Wesley was more 
familiar with the methods and spirit of his ad- 
ministration. In 1778 or 1779, because of the 
disturbed relations between Great Britain and 
her American colonies, and because of his 
strong sympathy with the former as against 
the latter, Mr. Rankin abandoned his work in 
America and returned to England. Mr. As- 
bury, who warmly espoused the cause of the 
colonies, and identified his fortunes with his 
flock in the wilderness, was, by the action of 
the preachers, re-instated in the superintend- 
ency, from which he had been displaced by the 



10 The Episcopacy and 

coming of Rankin, and continued to dis- 
cliarge its duties witli marked ability, hero- 
ism, and success, till Mr. Wesley's societies 
in America were constituted a separate and 
independent ecclesiastical organization under 
the style and title of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church ; being the first Episcopal Church 
with Protestant principles organized in this 
land. 

During this period the authority of Mr. 
Wesley and his Conference extended to the 
preachers and people in America, and the doc- 
trines and discipline of the Methodists, as con- 
tained in the Minutes of Mr. Wesley's Confer- 
ences in England, were formally acknowledged 
as the sole rule of conduct for the preachers 
laboring in connection with Mr. Wesley in 
America. Mr. Asbury and Mr. Rankin, as his 
general ^'Assistants," exercised the chief author- 
ity in this country in the name and place of Mr. 
Wesley, and by his appointment and under 
his direction. As did Mr. Wesley in England, 
so did his general assistants here ; after hearing 



The General Conference. 11 

the discussions of the preachers, they decided 
all questions which came before them. Such 
were the order and administration which pre- 
vailed during the first period of Methodist his- 
tory in America. 

We now approach the celebrated ^^Christ- 
mas Conference" of 1784. The Methodists 
both in England and in this country had, until 
now, one form of worship and discipline, but 
the independence of the American colonies, 
confirmed by the peace of 1783, was the 
occasion of an extraordinarj' change. Dur- 
ing the War of the Revolution the Method- 
ist societies in America wxre almost wholly 
deprived of the ordinances of baptism and the 
Lord's Supper ; for the ministers of the Estab- 
lished Church, on whose offices our people were 
dependent for these ministrations, had mostly 
left their parishes ; some of them were silenced, 
others left off preaching because they could 
not procure a maintenance by it, and many 
more, perhaps a large majority of all, being still 
loyal to the British crown had gone over into 



12 The Episcopacy and 

its dommions. In this emergency the Method- 
ists in America sought the advice and assist- 
ance of Mr. Wesley; and in response he de- 
clared that his scruples were now at an end, 
and that he conceived himself at perfect liberty 
to exercise that right which he doubted not 
God had given him. He deemed it a fitting 
opportunity to relinquish the power he had 
hitherto exercised in America, and to provide 
for the organization of an Episcopal Church 
which should be as independent of the English 
hierarchy as the country was of the English 
crown. 

Accordingly, Mr. Wesley prepared and print- 
ed a ^'Sunday Service for the Methodists in 
North America," comprising not only a liturgy 
and hymns, for public worship, for the admin- 
istration of the ordinances of baptism and of 
the Lord's Supper, for the solemnization of 
matrimony, and the burial of the dead, but 
also rubric and ritual prescribing "The Form 
and Manner of Making and Ordaining Superin- 
tendents, Elders, and Deacons," conforming the 



The Gei^eral Conference. 13 

whole substantially to the service of the Church 
of England, as prescribed in her Book of Com- 
mon Prayer for like offices and administrations, 
substituting in this service, however, the words 
"superintendents" and "elders" for the words 
^'bishops" and "priests," wherever these words 
occurred in the English Prayer Book. Then 
being assisted by several other presbyters of 
the Church of England, and probably using 
in the ceremony the very ritual he had pre- 
pared for his ideal Church yet to take form 
in this land, he solemnly ordained Dr. Coke, 
already a presbyter in the Established 
Church, to the office of superintendent ; and 
having delivered to him letters of episcopal 
orders, dispatched him to America, to or- 
ganize his distressed people into an independ- 
ent Episcopal Church, believing, as he declares, 
the episcopal form to be both scriptural and 
apostolic. 

On the arrival of Dr. Coke in this country a 
Conference of the preachers was called for 
"Christmas" week of 1784, and the official 



14 The Episcopacy and 

Minute says : " At this Conference we formed 
ourselv^es into an independent Church, and fol- 
lowing the counsel of Mr. Wesley we thought 
it best to become an Episcopal Church, making 
the episcopal office elective, and the elected 
superintendent amenable to the body of minis- 
ters and preachers." 

After Mr. Wesley's letter, appointing Dr. 
Coke and Mr. Asbury superintendents over 
the Methodists in America, had been read and 
analyzed and cordially approved by the Con- 
ference, a question arose as to the name by 
which the Church should be called, when John 
Dickins proposed that we call ourselves ^'The 
Methodist Episcopal Church," and the motion 
was carried without a dissenting voice. The 
preachers then unanimously elected Dr. Coke 
and Mr. Asbury to the office of superintendent, 
and, after Mr. Asbury had been ordained first 
a deacon and then an elder, he was solemnly 
ordained a superintendent by Dr. Coke, who 
was assisted in the service by the elders 
present. 



The Geneeal Conference. 15 

Thus, in pursuance of the counsel and ad- 
vice of Mr. Wesley, and in completion of plans 
which he had formed and partially executed in 
England, the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
organized. The whole case is thus stated by a 
distinguished and representative Wesleyan min- 
ister, the Rev. Dr. Dixon, now gone to his rest. 
He says : " When the United States had effect- 
ed their emancipation from the mother country 
Mr. Wesley felt himself at liberty to act with 
pei'fect freedom in the new territory, and, we 
may say, to develop his views and opinions 
fully, and if we mistake not it is to the Amer- 
ican Methodist Episcopal Church we must 
look for the real mind and sentiments of this 
great man. Obstructions removed, he instantly 
seized the opportunity of appointing an entire 
Church system on the principle of moderate 
episcopacy ; and if we may judge of the wis- 
dom and piety of the design by its usefulness 
and success we shall be prepared to consider it 
most providential. No Church in modern times 
has made any thing like the progress which 



16 The Episcopacy and 

is seen ia this brancli of our community." 
This is the voluntary and well considered tes- 
timony of a distinguished presbyterial Meth- 
odist to the Wesley anism of our episcopacy 
and the excellency and efficiency of our Church 
polity. 

The first regular Annual Conference of Mr. 
Wesley's preachers in America was held in 
1773, just after the arrival of Mr. Rankin as 
general ^'Assistant." Thenceforward till 1784 
the preachers all met annually at the same time 
and place for the transaction of their Confer- 
ence business. But as the field of labor spread 
in every direction it was not practicable for the 
preachers to meet annually in one place ; hence, 
beginning in 1785 and continuing till the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1792, several Conferences 
were held in the same year and in different 
parts of the country. The business done in 
these several Conferences in any given year 
was arranged in the Minutes as if it had all been 
done at one time and place. All legislation 
for the Church was done in these Conferences, 



The General Conference. 17 

but the preachers meeting in one Conference 
could not make rules and regulations for the 
others ; so that the action of one Conference 
must be concurred in by the others before it 
would become binding on the whole. These 
bodies could not easily harmonize, and the 
union and integrity of the Church were im- 
periled by this mode of legislation. An at- 
tempt was made to avoid some of the embar- 
rassments arising from this method of procedure 
by the organization of a council to be composed 
of the bishops and the presiding elders, whose 
every measure must receive the unanimous 
support of the council in order to its adoption, 
and would then be binding only on those Con- 
ferences in which it should be approved by a 
majoiity of the preachers. Though this plan 
had received the sanction of a majority of the 
preachers in the several Annual Conferences, 
it soon appeared that its practical working 
produced more discordant results than did the 
plan whose defects the council was devised to 

remedy; so that the council became distasteful 
2 



18 The Episcopacy and 

and obnoxious to both bishops and preachers, 
and was abandoned by the unanimous consent 
of all parties; and a General Conference, to 
be composed of all the preachers in full 
connection, was called to meet in Baltimore 
in November, 1792. The meeting of this 
Conference closes the second period of our 
history. 

The General Conference of 1792 was the first 
of a series of quadrennial General Conferences 
which has continued till this time. In 1792 
all legislation! in the Annual Conferences ceased, 
and thenceforth the rules and regulations for 
the government of the Church were made by 
the General Conference. 

From the year 1792 to the year 1804, both 
included, all the preachers in full connection 
with the Annual Conferences were members of 
the General Conference. By a rule made in 
1804 it was provided that thereafter a preacher 
must have traveled at least four years, and be 
in full connection with an Annual Conference 
at the time of the session of the General Con- 



The General Conference. 19 

ference, to be eligible to membership in that 
body, and the General Conference of 1808 was 
thus constituted. 

This method of constituting the supreme 
council of the Church, and its only legislative 
body, was objectionable from the first, but it 
became more and more so as the Church mul- 
tiplied and grew. It gave to those Conferences 
within or near which the General Conference 
met undue advantage, both in numbers and in- 
fluence, in the counsels and legislation of the 
Church. It may be of interest to note, as an 
illustration of the working of this system, that 
when the General Conference of 1804 met in 
Baltimore, of the 112 members of that body 
70 were from the Philadelphia and Baltimore 
Conferences alone ; and the General Confer- 
ence four years later was composed of 125 
members, of whom 63, or a majority of the 
whole, were from the same two Conferences. 
The reason for this disparity is obvious. 
Preachers from Baltimore, Philadelphia, and 
other Annual Conferences near the place of 



20 The Episcopacy and 

holding the General Conference could easily 
attend its sessions, while those from Confer- 
ences in the West, South-west, and North-east, 
owing to the great distances and the expense 
of travel, could not be present without much 
difficulty. In view of this inequality of attend- 
ance, and for other reasons, the General Confer- 
ence of 1808 deemed it wise and prudent to 
make some new provision for membership in 
the General Conferences thereafter, being spe- 
cially moved thereto by the action of a majority 
of the Annual Conferences. 

Up to this period in oar histor}^ the powers 
of the General Conference to make rules and 
regulations for our Church were unlimited, and 
for its action it was amenable to no earthly 
tribunal; but the General Conference of 1808 
provided that thereafter the General Confer- 
ence, instead of being composed of all preach- 
ers of four years' standing in the Conferences 
and possessing unlimited powers, should be a 
delegated body with limited powers. And in 
its conventional capacity, being composed of all 



The General Conference. 21 

the elders of the Church, the General Confer- 
ence of 1808 did institute a delegated Gen- 
eral Conference, transferring to and vesting in 
the then created body all the power which the 
whole body of elders possessed to make rules 
and regulations for the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, with certain specified exceptions em- 
braced in six restrictive articles. So that the 
power to make rules and regulations for the 
Church w^as specifically limited by the same 
power that conferred it. 

It is perhaps worthy of note that, from the 
organization of the Church onward to and in- 
cluding the General Conference of 1808, the 
bishops of the Church were members of the 
General Conference, inasmuch as they were trav- 
eling preachers, and as such were entitled to all 
the rights and privileges of other members of 
that body, and they were both in law and fact 
a component part of the law-making power of 
the Church. Their membership in the General 
Conference, and their consequent duties and 
responsibilities, sufficiently explain the frequent 



22 The Episcopacy and 

mention of their names in the Journals of 
that body all through its earlier sessions, in 
which they aie represented as actively par- 
ticipating in its proceedings. Of all such 
rights and privileges they were deprived by 
the })lan for a delegated General Conference. 
They are appointed by the organic law of the 
General Conference to preside in its sessions, 
but in determining questions before that body 
they have neither voice nor vote; nor may 
they speak on any subject but by the courtesy 
of the body itself. This brings us down to the 
close of the third period of our history. 

The first delegated General Conference met 
in New York in 1812, and was composed of 
delegates chosen by the Annual Conferences 
severally according to a given ratio of repre- 
sentation. It was the legitimate successor of 
the General Conference of 1808, but it did not 
inherit all the powers of its predecessor. It 
met and acted in pursuance of and subordinate 
to an organic law enacted by the General Con- 
ference of 1808, and which had been accepted, 



The General Conference. 23 

ratified, and confirmed by the several Annual 
Conferences in acting under it and in conform, 
ity to its provisions ; wMcli organic law is 
fundamental, and has been called, not inappro- 
priately, a constitution. This instrument pre- 
scribes the ratio of representation and the mode 
of choosing the delegates; the organization 
of the General Conference and its manner or 
method of action. It comprises also the grant 
of powers to make rules and I'egulatioiis for 
the Church, and prescribes the limits within 
which such powers may be exercised ; and en- 
thrones as a part of the constitution of the 
Church, and unalterable by the sole action of 
the General Conference, all those rules and 
regulations found in different parts of the 
Book of Discipline which are excepted out of 
the grant of power and are protected by the re- 
strictive articles. Whether this instrument be 
called a constitution or not, yet it most ob- 
viously is such to the General Conference, and 
it is absurd to deny it. By what authority 
does a given number of ministers and laymen 



24 The Episcopacy and 

occupy seats as delegates, or tlie bisliop the 
chair as president, of a General Conference 
but by this constitution ? Under the author- 
ity of that instrument the delegates composing 
every General Conference since 1808 have been 
chosen and commissioned, and have taken their 
seats as legislators for the Church. But for 
the rights conferred by this constitution those 
quadrennial gatherings of ministers and lay- 
men would not have been General Conferences 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The limita- 
tions and restiictions are part and parcel of the 
very law creating and empowering a delegated 
General Conference, and are therefore a constitu- 
tional law of binding force, sacred and inviolable. 
There may be honest differences of opin- 
ion as to the true construction and meaning 
of particular provisions of this fundamental 
law, yet this does not alter or affect, when 
taken in their true meaning, the binding 
force of the restrictions themselves. The Gen- 
eral Conference may work up to the bounda- 
ries of its powers as defined in the limiting 



The General Conference. 25 

terms of the organic law, but it may go 
no further. Here it is confronted by an 
impassable bariier to its authority, to over- 
leap which would be usurpation and rev- 
olution. 

The General Conference may not change or 
alter our Articles of Religion ; may not admit 
a greater number of delegates than the consti- 
tution allows ; may not do away Episcopacy nor 
destroy the plan of our itinerant general super- 
intendency ; may not change our General Rules ; 
may not deprive our ministers or members of 
the right of trial and appeal ; and may not ap- 
propriate the proceeds of the Book Concern 
and of the Chartered Fund otherwise than as 
prescribed in the restriction. The General 
Conference of 1808 and any one of its prede- 
cessors had ample power to do any one or all 
of these prohibited things, and there is a power 
still in the Church which may lawfully do all 
these things, except to change our Articles of 
Religion, but that power does not reside in 
the delegated General Conference. The po^ver 



26 The Episcopacy and 

to do these things was specifically excepted out 
of the grant of powers to that body, and the 
restrictive articles enacted by the convention 
of the whole body of the eldership of the 
Church, forbidding the General Conference to 
do these things, are as truly a constitution to 
the Church and to that body as the Constitu- 
tion of these United States is a law unto Con- 
gress and to this nation. In short, if this 
section does not constitute the organic law of 
the General Conference in all its departments, 
then we have 7io constitution, and the General 
Conference is lawless. But it is not so. These 
restrictions are of binding obligation, and all 
pi'opositions to alter or change this organic law 
itself, or whatever is under its protection, must 
go back to the constituency of the General 
Conference for its concurrence, in such manner 
as is made and provided in the constitution 
itself. 

The history of the origin of this constitution, 
and the declared necessity and purposes of 
the instrument, show its importance in the 



The General Conference. 27 

judgment of the men who framed and adopted 
it. On the 10th day of May, 1808, on the mo- 
tion of Stephen G. Eoszel, of the Baltimore 
Conference, seconded by William Burke, of the 
Western Conference, a committee of fourteen, 
two fiom each of the seven Annual Confer- 
ences then existing, was appointed to draw up 
and report to the Conference regulations for 
the government of future General Conferences. 
This committee consisted of Ezekiel Cooper 
and John Wilson from the New York Confer- 
ence, George Pickering and Joshua Soule from 
the New England Conference, William McKen- 
dree and William Burke from the Western 
Conference, William Phoebus and Josiah Ran- 
dall from the South Carolina Conference, 
Philip Bruce and Jesse Lee from the Virginia 
Conference, Stephen G. Boszel and Nelson 
Reed from the Baltimore Conference, and John 
McClaskey and Thomas Ware from the Phila- 
delphia Conference. 

This committee submitted its report after six 
days' deliberation, and from the character of 



28 The Episcopacy and 

the report itself, and from the declarations of 
the committee concerning its purposes, it is 
plain that the able and experienced men who 
were chiefly concerned in framing the plan for 
a delegated General Conference perceived the 
fitness, and, indeed, the obligation, to give to 
the then existing economy of the Church a 
character of stability which should place it be- 
yond the power of a mere majority of the 
delegated General Conference to change the 
fundamental principles of its doctrines or dis- 
cipline. Indeed, this purpose is very clearly 
and fully set forth in the report of the com- 
mittee. In declaring the important aims to be 
accomplished by a delegated General Confer- 
ence with limited powers, the report says : 
"Whereas it is of the greatest importance that 
the doctrines, form of government, and General 
Kules of the united societies should be pre- 
served sacred and inviolable; and whereas 
every prudent measure should be taken to pre- 
serve, strengthen, and perpetuate the union of 
the Connection ; therefore your committee, upon 



The General Conference. 29 

the maturest deliberation, liave thought it ad- 
visable that the third section of the Discipline 
should be changed as follows :" Then follows 
the instrument providing for a delegated Gen- 
eral Conference, and defining and limiting its 
powers, substantially to the same effect, and 
mostly in the precise words and phrases of that 
document as it stands in our Book of Discipline 
to-day. 

The expressed purposes of this plan were 
twofold : 1. To preserve, strengthen, and per- 
petuate the union of the Connection ; and, 2. 
To preserve sacred and inviolable the doctrines, 
moral discipline, and form of government of 
the Church ; and these objects are declared to 
be of the greatest importance. The details of 
the plan by which it was proposed to secure 
these important ends were agreed upon, after 
the maturest deliberation, by one of the ablest 
committees ever constituted in the history of 
Methodism; and €very provision of the plan 
thus framed was adopted by the General Con- 
ference, with marvelous unanimity, and sub- 



30 The Episcopacy anp 

stantially as it came from the hands of the 
committee. 

The constitution shows that it was not in- 
deed thought proper to impress a feature of 
absolute immutability on the system in regard 
even to what were deemed its fundamental 
principles, yet it was judged expedient to set- 
tle it on such a basis as would render any 
change in these respects difficulty and, indeed, 
impracticable, except under such a conviction 
of its propriety and necessity as would make 
the demand for it well-nigh unanimous. 
Changes in the organic law in the manner pre- 
scribed in 1808 were much less easily accom- 
plished then than now. Then no change could 
be made without the consent of each and every 
Annual Conference ; and if the ratio of repre- 
sentation had not been shielded by one of the 
restrictive articles the original plan of chang- 
ing the constitution might have continued un- 
til this day. It came to pass, however, that 
when, on account of the growth of the Church 
and the large increase of her ministers, the 



The Genekal Conference. 31 

General Conference had become so large a 
body as to render a change in the ratio of 
representation very desirable, if not necessaiy, 
a single Conference threw itself squarely 
against the proposed change and defeated it, 
though every other Conference of the Church 
favored it; whereupon a measure was set on 
foot to alter the constitution itself, so that 
changes in that instrument might be carried by 
three fourths of the aggregate vote of all the 
members of the several Annual Conferences 
present and voting thereon, rather than by the 
concurrent vote of a majority of each and 
every Annual Conference. This alteration was 
consummated in 1832, so that now changes in 
the organic law are much more easily accom- 
plished than when the delegated General Con- 
ference was first constituted, though the aggre- 
gate vote in the Annual Conferences required 
to carry an amendment of the constitution is 
larger than was required for that purpose in 
the original law. When making this change, 
however, another change was also made by 



32 The Episcopacy and 

which the Articles of Eeligion became abso- 
lutely unchangeable by any action whatsoever 
of the General Conference or of the Annual 
Conferences, whether taken separately or con- 
currently ; thus giving the attribute of immuta- 
ble stability to our doctrinal foundations. 



The General Conference. 33 



CHAPTER 11. 

WHAT IS EPISCOPACY? 

IN providing for a delegated General Confer- 
ence it was intended to secure two results, 
which were considered by the entire eldership 
of the Church of the greatest importance : 
First, to preserve, strengthen, and perpetuate 
the union of the Connection ; and, second^ to 
})reserve sacred and inviolable the doctrines, 
moral discipline, and form of government of 
the Church. The purpose to preserve our 
form of government sacred and inviolable finds 
its answering and pertinent provision in the 
third restrictive article of the constitution, and 
is in the words following; namely, 

"They [the General Conference] shall not 
change or alter any part or rule of our gov- 
ernment so as to do away episcopacy, or 
destroy the plan of our itinerant general 
Buperintendency." 



34 The Episcopacy and 

One obvious purpose of the General Confer- 
ence of 1808 was to perpetuate sacred and in- 
violable the Episcopal form of Church govern- 
ment, and that purpose is expressed in this 
restriction. The delegated General Conference 
is herein forbidden to change or alter any part 
or rule of our Church government so as to give 
to the Church a Presbyterial form of govern- 
ment, a Congregational form of government, or 
any other than the Episcopal form of govern- 
ment. We v^ere constituted an Episcopal 
Church in the beginning, and it is provided in 
our organic law that we must continue such 
until the Annual and General Conferences, by 
concurrent action in the manner prescribed, 
shall authorize the transformation. 

The General Conference shall not do away 
Episcopacy. 

What is Episcopacy? 

Episcopacy is the government of bishops in 
the Church. It exists in three cardinal forms, 
with sundry subordinate modifications. 



The General Conference. 35 

In the Chiircli of England and in the Protest- 
ant Episcopal Church in America the churches, 
or parishes, as they are called, of a certain ter- 
ritory are united in one ecclesiastical organiza- 
tion called a diocese. Each diocese is in 
charge of a bishop, whose jurisdiction is limited 
to his own diocese. In England the dioceses 
are again united into two provinces, each being 
under the charge of an archbishop — the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of 
York — of whom the former has precedence in 
ecclesiastical rank. There are no archbishops 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States. Their bishops are all of equal 
authority, each ruling his own diocese inde- 
})endently of any ecclesiastical superior. 

In the papal Church there is the same union of 
parishes into dioceses, each diocese being under 
the authority of its own bishop. And to a very 
considerable extent there is likewise the union 
of dioceses into provinces, presided over by 
archbishops. But archbishops, bishops, and all 
other dignitaries of the Roman hierarchy are 



S6 The Episcopacy and 

themselves appointed by, and are amenable to, 
one spiritual father and head, the Pope of 
Rome, from whom as the supreme and assumed 
infallible head of that Church they derive all 
their authority. 

The principles of this diocesan episcopacy 
are, that " God has established an order of men 
as ministers of his Church who have exclusive 
right to the ministerial functions of that 
Church, who perpetuate themselves, and who 
are arranged in three orders by divine ap- 
pointment, the supreme power within a given 
jurisdiction being vested in one man, who, 
when once raised to his episcopal prerogatives, 
becomes invested, hy a divine right for life, 
with exclusive powers to admit to membership 
in the Church by the rite of confirmation, and 
to create and commission all ministers of the 
Gospel for the entire circuit of his episcopate." 
This presents at least the germ of this system, 
the growth and details of which it would not 
be easy to describe or define. 

Methodist episcopacy is not a diocesan epis- 



The General Conference. 37 

copacy, nor are the general superintendents of 
oiir Church diocesan bishops. They are itin- 
erant bishops, and their jurisdiction is general 
and concurrent ; that is to say, they are not al- 
lotted to any particular territories or districts, 
but exercise their functions of supervision alike 
over all the preachers and the churches of the 
denomination. In a journey of eighteen months, 
in which I made the circuit of the world, I was 
not at any moment, when in the presence of a 
Methodist preacher or a Methodist church, or 
within any Methodist Conference or mission 
field of Asia or of Europe, outside of my ju- 
risdiction as a general superintendent of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Nor is it the doctrine of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church that her bishops are a third order 
in the ministry in any such sense as that doc- 
trine is held by the other episcopal Churches 
which have been named. At the same time it 
must be agreed that the term " order " is am- 
biguous, and whether or not it may properly 
be applied to the bishops of our Church, as in- 



38 The Episcopacy and 

dicatiDg a class or grade of ministers distinct 
from and superior to tlie elders of the Church, 
must be determined entirely by the meaning 
attached to the term itself when it is employed. 
If the term be understood as describing such 
an order in the ministry as established by 
the express authority of God, and as essen- 
tial to the existence of a Christian Church and 
a valid administration of the ordinances, then 
Methodist episcopacy is not held in the judg- 
ment of our Church to repi^esent a third order 
in the ministry. The Methodist Episcopal 
Church not only admits, but asserts and main- 
tains, and has always so done, by her highest 
and her humblest authorities, and by all the 
grades between, that in this sense bishops and 
elders are inherently and essentially the same 
order in the ministry. Its episcopacy was 
originally and avowedly instituted on this prin- 
ciple, and still rests on this doctrine. In 1844 
the bishops of our Church, all of whom have 
long since laid their well-worn armor by, in 
their address to the General Conference said : 



The General Conference. 39 

"With our great founder, we are convinced 
that bishops and presbyters are the same order 
in the Christian ministry, and this has been the 
sentiment of the Wesleyan Methodists from the 
beginning." To the soundness of this doctrine 
I may here say, and not with bated breath, 
that the present bishops of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church give a most hearty and unani- 
mous consent. 

At the same time it must also be equally 
held as the doctrine of our Church that this 
original and essential equality does not render 
it unlawful for elders, in circumstances which 
to them appear to make it expedient, to dele- 
gate to one of their own oi-der a more extensive 
power of oversight, or to commit to some one 
or more of them, as organs of the body, a 
larger executive part of that power which 
originally and fundamentally was common to 
them all. And this is the real source and 
spring of the power and authority of Methodist 
episcopacy. So that our episcopacy is derived, 
dependent, and responsible. Its authority is a 



40 The Episcopacy and 

delegated authority only, and may be modified 
just as the body of the eldership from which it 
was derived shall see proper, and that, too, 
without any infringement on the rights of the 
bishops themselves. 

Now by just so far as this delegated author- 
ity gives to the bishops a more extensive over- 
sight and a wider sweep of executive duties, 
by just so far, and no farther, may they be con- 
sidered a third order in the ministry of our 
Church. In other words, the bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church are an order of ' 
ministers distinct from and superior to other 
elders of the Church in that extent of jurisdic- 
tion, and in those executive duties delegated to 
them by the body of elders, and in no other 
respect. Such is Methodist episcopacy as to 
the source of its authority, and as to the sense 
in which it is an order in our ministry distinct 
from and superior to the eldership of the 
Church. 

But what is the episcopacy which the Gen- 
eral Conference may not do away without the 



The Geneeal Conference. 41 

consent or concun-ence of three fourths of the 
entire eldership of the Church ? Undoubtedly 
the Methodist episcopacy of 1808. And what 
was Methodist episcopacy in 1808 ? The right 
answer to this question is important in inter- 
preting the third restrictive article. Whatever 
Methodist episcopacy signified to the Methodist 
preachers of 1808, that is its scope and mean- 
ing in the constitution of the General Confer- 
ence. The purpose of this article, if it had a 
purpose at all, was to conserve and perpetuate 
Methodist episcopacy with every essential ele- 
ment of its nature and attribute of its authority 
by w^hich it was known and identified when 
the restriction was adopted. All other kinds 
or forms of episcopacy were foreign to their 
thoughts or conceptions so far as that office 
stood related to the Methodist Church. It 
would be idle to say that, so long as the name 
of the office be retained, though every attribute 
or quality of the office itself be done away, the 
restriction is not broken ; and the same would 
be true in case of any important or material 



42 The Episcopacy and 

modification of tlie functions and duties of the 
oflSce, or of the accountability of its incumbents. 
The Geneial Conference of 1808 understood 
by the term ^'episcopacy," as used in this re- 
strictive article, the government of bishops in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church ; of bishops 
chosen from the eldership, elected and com- 
missioned according to a specific manner and 
form, charged v^ith well-defined duties and 
responsibilities, for the faithful fulfillment of 
which they were strictly accountable to the 
General Conference. 

1 . The bishops were chosen by the General 
Conference. They had always been so chosen ; 
they were so chosen in 1808, and this method 
of choosing the bishops of the Church was to 
continue. While the bishops derive their au- 
thority from the body of the elders, as does 
also the General Conference itself, still the elder- 
ship has authorized and required the delegated 
General Conference to elect the bishops. To 
fail to do so would do away episcopacy, so 
that the General Conference is bound to per- 



The General Confekence. 43 

petuate episcopacy by electing from time to 
time a sufficient number of suitable men to the 
office. Nor can this power or duty be trans- 
ferred by the General Conference to any other 
body or agency. Its own powers to perpetu- 
ate the episcopacy are delegated powers, and 
may not, therefore, be transferred. 

2. The bishops of the Church had always 
been ordained before entering upon the duties 
of their office. The episcopacy of 1808 was 
one into w^hose functions every incumbent from 
Coke to McKendree had been inducted by 
ceremonies of solemn consecration. The record 
shows that both Coke and Asbury were re- 
ceived as superintendents or bishops by the 
Christmas Conference of 1784, not on the 
ground of their election alone, but because that 
body was entirely satisfied of the validity of 
their ordination. Inasmuch, therefore, as a 
valid ordination of these men to the episcopal 
office was among the things concerning w^hich 
the Conference must be fully satisfied as a 
condition precedent to receiving them as 



44 The Episcopacy and 

bishops, it is plain tliat, to the understanding 
of the Conference Avhich organized the Church, 
a valid ordination was necessary to a valid 
episcopacy. And in the absence of even a 
shadow of proof to the contrary it is fair to 
conclude that this continued to be the doctrine, 
as it certainly was the practice, of the Church ; 
and that an imordaimd episcopacy was never 
conceived of or designed by the General Con- 
ference of 1808, and therefore it is not within 
the province or power of a delegated General 
Conference to do away with the ordination of 
the bishops. 

3. To the bishops belonged the exclusive 
authority to ordain the ministry of the Church. 
No other person or collection of persons had 
ever ordained a minister in the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church. Such ordinations had been 
always and exclusively performed by the 
bishops of the Church. The law of the Church 
from the beginning has anticipated and pro- 
vided for a possible, though a very improbable, 
emergency in which the Church might find 



The General Conference. 45 

itself without a bishop, but even iu such an 
event presbyterial ordination to the ministry is 
not allowed ; but it is provided in such a con- 
tingency that the General Conference shall 
elect a man to the episcopacy, and that elders 
appointed by the General Conference shall 
ordain him. So that the entire history and 
legislation of the Church show that to the 
episcopacy belonged the exclusive right to or- 
dain deacons and elders in the Church. Bishop 
Hamline, in his great speech in the General Con- 
ference of 1844, which has been so plentifully 
quoted, and not unfrequently perverted by 
the assailants of Methodist episcopacy, says: 
" As to the episcopacy which we may not do 
away, the power to ordain is essential to its 
being." 

4. The bishops had always been chosen and 
consecrated with a view to a life-long service 
in the episcopacy. Such had been the unvary- 
ing practice of the Church, and such was the 
universal understanding of both preachers and 
people, from the beginning up to the General 



43 The Episcopacy and 

Conference of 1808, so that a limited term of 
service not running through the life-time of the 
incumbent was foreign to all their conceptions 
of episcopacy. There never had been any 
thing in the history of the Church, in its legis- 
lation, its rubrics, or ritual, that hinted even 
by remotest intimation that the elections and 
ordinations to the episcopacy were any less 
permanent than were the elections and ordina- 
tions to the eldership; and it would be now 
just as inconsistent with the law and usages 
of the Church, and no less incongruous with 
her entire history, to deny a life tenure to her 
episcopacy as to deny a life tenure to her 
eldership. 

Whether there might be a Methodist episco- 
pacy whose bishops should not be chosen by 
the General Conference, who should not be 
inducted into office by solemn ordination, who 
should not have the exclusive right to ordain 
the ministry of the Church, and M^hose term of 
service should be limited to a definite number 
of years, it is not needful now to determine ; 



The General Conference. 47 

but such would not be Metbodist episcopacy 
as it was understood and held by the men 
who planned the delegated General Conference 
and framed its constitution. No bishop of the 
Church had ever come to his office without 
election by the General Conference, without 
ordination, without authority to ordain the 
ministry, and without having been chosen Avith 
a view to a life-long sei-vice in the office; 
these were attributes of Methodist episcopacy 
when it was enshrined in the organic law of 
the Church ; and for the General Conference to 
do them, or any of them, away without the 
concurrence of the Annual Conferences in the 
manner provided in the constitution, would be 
an infraction of the fundamental law of the 
Church. The episcopacy as it was in 1 808, with 
every form of authorization and recognition, 
with every attribute of authority and responsi- 
bility, must remain unchanged and unchang- 
able, except by the consenting action of the 
preachers in the Annual Conferences. 

The bishops themselves had always been 



48 The Episcopacy and 

amenable to the General Conference of the 
preachers; and when the delegated General 
Conference was created this amenability in its 
completest measure was transferred from the 
body of the eldership to the delegated body, 
and the bishops of the Church are to-day, as 
always, answerable to the General Conference 
for their moral and ministerial character and 
conduct, and for their official administration; 
but the episcopacy itself, as an institution of 
the Church, is not answerable to tbe General 
Conference, nor liable to be abolished, nor ma- 
terially modified by its action. Elections to 
the office are committed to the General Confer- 
ence, and if that body should presume to so 
far omit or neglect the exercise of its power in 
this respect as to leave the Church without 
bishops, or with a number entirely inadequate 
to the proper episcopal supervision of the 
Church, such non-action would be revolution- 
ary ; but when the General Conference chooses 
a man to the episcopacy it may not impair his 
authority nor diminish the responsibilities of 



The General Conference. 49 

his office. Amenability applies to the officer 
and not to the office. The General Conference 
may depose the officer, but may not abolish the 
office. The General Conference may at its 
pleasure remove any bishop from office, for any 
cause which to it may seem sufficient to require 
or justify his removal, whether it be for mal- 
feasance, for misfeasance, or for nonfeasance in 
office, but the authority to do this carries with 
it no power to abolish the episcopacy itself ; 
that, as an institution of the Church, must be 
retained both for substance and form as it ex- 
isted in 1808 till it shall be changed by the 
concurring action of both the General and An- 
nual Conferences. 

The third restrictive article conserves also 
the plan of our itinerant general superintend- 
ency. For eight years, covering the period 
from 1784 to 1792, our system of government, 
including its plan of general superintendenc}-, 
had annually passed the ordeal of all the Con- 
ferences, which by concurrent action could have 
changed or abolished it at pleasure. After- 

4 



50 The Episcopacy and 

ward it passed the careful scrutiny of five 
quadrennial General Conferences, composed of 
all the preachers in the Connection, with full 
authority to create or to destroy at will. The 
General Conference of 1 808, made up of godly 
men, who had carefully observed our plan of 
work and its results, and who were fully satis- 
fied with the principles and the utility of the s^^s- 
tem, in parting with its powers, and committing 
them to a delegated body, proposed by consti- 
tutional restrictions to ratify and perpetuate 
the doctrines, moral discipline, and government 
of the Church ; and especially to conserve and 
perpetuate the episcopacy of the Church as an 
itinerant general superintendency ; as through 
such superintendency the General Conference 
would be able to execute its rules and regula- 
tions, and carry the whole system of our itin- 
erant ministry into complete effect. 

The plan of our itinerant general superin- 
tendency finds its full and complete statement 
in the duties of bishops as they were set forth 
in the Discipline, and existed in the well-estab- 



The Geneeal Conference. 51 

lished usasres of the Church at the time the 
constitution was adopted. Whatever the 
bishops were required to do in overseeing and 
carrying forward the work of the Church be- 
longed to and constituted a part of the plan of 
the general superintend ency. 

The phraseology of the restriction implies 
that at the time of its adoption there was 
already an existing and an established govern- 
ment in operation, whose character and meth- 
ods were defined in rules found in the Disci- 
pline and usages of the Church ; and no part or 
rule of the then existing government might be 
altered or changed so as to destroy the plan of 
our itinerant general superintendency. 

It is to be observed that not only may not 
the General Conference chansfe or alter this 
restiictive article, but it may not change or 
alter any part or rule of the Discipline, wher- 
ever found, which constitutes any part of the 
plan of episcopal supervision. It is therefore 
only necessary to ascertain the plan of our 
itinerant general superintendency in operation 



52 The Episcopacy and 

at the time this restriction was adopted, to de- 
termine the plan which must abide in its 
entirety until modified or abolished by the con- 
curring action to that intent of both the An- 
nual and General Conferences. 

What was the plan of superintendency when 
the constitution of the delegated General Con- 
ference came into operation ? The answer to 
this question is to be found in the duties of a 
bishop as they were declared in the Discipline 
and in the well known and established usages 
of the Church. Among the duties thus en- 
joined upon a bishop, and which he might not 
omit or neglect except at the peril of his official 
standing, the following may be mentioned: 
1. To preside in the Conferences; 2. To form 
the districts according to his judgment, and to 
choose and appoint the presiding elders ; 3. To 
fix the appointments of the preachers; 4. To 
travel through the Connection at large ; 5. To 
oversee the spiritual and temporal interests of 
the Church ; 6. To consecrate bishops and to 
ordain elders and deacons. This was the plan 



The General Conference. 53 

of our itinerant general superintendency as it 
was defined and enjoined by tlie law of the 
Church, and as it was in active operation when 
the restrictive article was enacted; and it is 
therefore this plan which the General Confer- 
ence may do nothing to destroy. 

Superintendency is the generic term in all 
this business, and the specific duties prescribed 
and enjoined are subordinate thereto, and de- 
scribe and limit the sphere of its action. 

1. Superintendency is the act of superintend- 
ing ; it is care and oversight for the purpose of 
direc ing, and with authority to direct. It is 
the duty of the bishops to oversee the spiritual 
and temporal interests of the Church. 

Theirs is a general superintendency ; that is, 
a superintendency having a common relation to 
the entire Church. According to the plan of 
superintendency, the bishops have a common 
authority to appoint the preachers to their sev- 
eral stations and circuits wherever they may 
preside in an Annual Conference — and the au- 
thority to preside and appoint is common to 



54 The Episcopacy and 

all the bishops in every part of the Connection 
— and so to exercise throughout the Church, at 
all times, those supervisory powt^rs with the 
duties of which they are charged by the la\v 
of the Church. 

2. The scope and purpose of the third re- 
striction, so far as it relates to the point under 
immediate consideration, have received an au- 
thoritative construction and interpretation by 
the concurrent action of the General and Annunl 
Conferences, and wdth a marvelous unanimity, 
so far as any thing to the contrary appears. 

When, in 1856, it was deemed desirable to 
appoint a bishop for Africa, limiting his epis- 
copal labors and administration to that countr}", 
it was plainly perceived that the General Con- 
ference had no authority to limit the jurisdic- 
tion of a bishop to any particular country or 
district; and from this opinion there was no 
dissent. It was the unanimous judgment of 
the members of the General Conference then 
in session that, until the constitution should be 
amended to that intent, such an appointment 



The Genekal Conference. 55 

with the proposed limitations would be clearly 
unlawful. As it was considered highly impor- 
tant that a bishop should be appointed to 
Africa and for Africa, the General Conference 
took the initial steps to so change the third 
restriction as to allow that body to elect a 
bishop for any of our foreign missions, limiting 
his jurisdiction to the same ; and in this pro- 
posed change the Annual Conferences con- 
curred by more than the required three fourths 
vote — indeed, the vote was almost, if not quite, 
unanimous; and the third restriction as thus 
amended reads thus : "They [the General Con- 
ference] shall not change or alter any part 
or rule of our government so as to do away 
episcopacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant 
general superintendency ; but may appoint a mis- 
sionary bishop for any of our foreign missions, 
limiting his juiisdiction to the same respect- 
ively." The only conceivable purpose or possi- 
ble effect of this amendment was to authorize 
the General Conference in a given case to 
restrain or limit the superintendency of a bishop 



56 Tup: Episcovacy and 

to a particular country or district iu that coun- 
try. The invincible logic of this whole trans- 
action is this : that in the absence of such an 
amendment of the constitution the General 
Conference had no power to do even that for 
which this amendment provides; much less to 
divide the whole territory of the Church into 
episcopal districts, and to limit the episcopal 
labors and administration — the superin tendency 
of the bishops*— to these districts respectively. 
3. Theirs is an itinerant general superintend- 
ency. The plan of individual visitation be- 
longed to and was arranged by the bishops. 
They might divide the w^ork among themselves 
in such a way as to secure the most convenient 
and efficient administration of the whole, pro- 
vided always the itinerant superintendency 
should be preserved ; and for preserving it 
they were answerable to the General Confer- 
ence. But they inight not localize themselves, 
nor be localized by the General Conference. 
No diocese might be created limiting within 
prescribed bounds the exercise of the authority 



The General Conference. 57 

of the bishops, nor confining their itinerancy in 
the discharge of their official duties to particu- 
lar districts. Moreover, it was distinctly de- 
clared that if a bishop should cease from trav- 
eling at large among the people without the 
consent of the General Conference he should not 
exercise his episcopal office thereafter in any 
degree. This is not to be interpreted as per- 
mitting a bishop who is not disabled to cease 
from traveling at large with the consent of the 
General Conference. The meaning of this par- 
ticular provision was declared by Bishops Coke 
and Asbury in their notes on the Discipline, 
written and published in connection with the 
Discipline by authority of the General Confer- 
ence of 1796. Their interpretation is this : 
"The bishops are obliged 'to travel till the 
General Conference pronounces them superan- 
nuated ; for that is certainly the meaning of 
the answer to the sixth question of this sec- 
tion." This was the authorized and only inter- 
pretation of this provision up to the time of 
the adoption of the constitution of the General 



58 The Episcopacy and 

Conference. If this interpretation be the true 
one, then indeed the General Conference cannot 
allow a bishop to exercise his episcopal office 
except he itinerates. The office is an episco- 
pacy charged with the duties of general super- 
intendency, and the manner of maintaining the 
general superintendency is by itinerating in the 
supervision ; therefore no bishop can, by right, 
exist in a local or located capacity in the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church ; and no change which 
obstructs them in the discharge of their duty 
in this respect can be made or allowed by the 
General Conference. 

The case of Bishop Andrew has passed into 
history, and it is referred to in this connection 
for the sole reason that the principles declared 
in the adjudication of that case so fully sustain 
the views just taken. The preamble and reso- 
lution adopted by the General Conference of 
1844 are as follows; namely, 

" Whereas, The Discipline of our Church for- 
bids the doing any thing calculated to destroy 
our itinerant general superintendency ; and, 



The Geneeal Conference. 59 

" Whereas^ Bishop Andrew lias become con- 
nected witli slavery by marriage or otherwise ; 
and this act having drawn after it circum- 
stances which in the estimation of the General 
Conference will greatly embarrass the exercise 
of his office as an itinerant general superintend- 
ent, if not in some places prevent it entirely ; 
therefore, 

'^JResolvedj That it is the sense of this Gen- 
eral Confei'euce that he desist fi'om the exer- 
cise of this office so long as the impediment 
remains." 

This was a judicial proceeding, and may 
therefore be taken as a precedent settling the 
law of the case by the highest authority known 
in the jurisprudence of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church. This judicial action shows that 
the commandment is exceeding broad ; that the 
third restriction not only forbids any act which 
at one blow would destroy our itinerant gen- 
eral superintendency, but it also forbids, and 
with equal authority, any act tending to sucli a 
result ; thus giving heed to a well known prin- 



60 The Episcopacy and 

ciple, that tlie General Conference may not, by ' 
indirection and by gradual approaches, destroy 
a system which it may not destroy at one 
stroke by positive and direct action to that 
intent; that the thin end of the wedge may 
not be entered where the thick end may not 
follow. Moreover, it show^s not only that the 
General Conference may not itself do any thing 
to destroy the itinerant general superintend- 
ency, but that it may not allow a bishop of 
the Church to do any thing to embarrass 
him in his office or limit the sphere of his 
episcopal labors and administration. It could 
not be alleged in the case of Bishop Andrew 
that there were no sections of the Church 
or groups of Conferences in which he could 
still render acceptable service as a bishop. On 
the contrary, it was notorious that to a portion 
of the Church his acceptability had been by 
no means impaired. But it was alleged, as the 
ground of this action against him, that there 
were some places where he could not go as a 
bishop because of his connection with slavery, 



The General Conference. 61 

so that, if he should continue a superintendent 
at all, his labors and administration as such 
must, of necessity, be restricted to certain local- 
ities or districts of the Church ; a result which 
the General Conference, in view of the third 
restrictive article, did not believe itself at lib- 
erty to tolerate, much less to authorize ; and 
because of this constitutional provision he was 
required to desist wholly from the exercise of 
his episcopal office until the impediment to his 
service as an itinerant general superintendent 
should be removed. 

4. Moreover, this itinerant general superin- 
tendency was to be maintained and perpetuated 
according to a 'plan already existing and well 
defined. This word " plan " found in the third 
restrictive article is significant and important. 
It shows that no loose or uncertain notions 
ruled the hour, but that the convention of the 
elders of the Church, sitting as a General Con- 
ference in 1808, was acting deliberately and for 
a purpose. They did not propose to subject 
any vital or important feature of the then ex- 



62 The Episcopacy and 

i sting plan of superintendency to the caprice, 
nor even to the best considered and most delib- 
erately formed judgment, of a mere majority of 
the delegated General Conference, but they 
did propose that any proposition to modify or 
change it in any essential or important respect 
should receive a vote of two thirds of the Gen- 
eral Conference, and also a vote of three fourths 
of all the members of the several Annual Con- 
ferences. This very term " plan " denotes a 
system sketched or defined, a scheme devised, 
a mode of action or of procedure expressed in 
words, or embodied in well-understood and 
established usages — as the plan of a treaty, 
the plan of a constitution, the plan of a gov- 
ernment. And that there should be no doubt 
or uncertainty as the character of the " plan " 
to be conserved and perpetuated, it is spoken 
of as the plan of our itinerant general super- 
intendency. It really seems that this form of 
expi'ession is so definite, and narrows the mat- 
ter down to so fine a point, as to leave no room 
for cavil or doubt. It was not enough to 



The General Confeeein^ce. 63 

require the delegated General Conference to 
keep up a plan of an itinerant general superin- 
tendency, but it was required to perpetuate 
the plan of our itinerant general superin tend- 
ency. These definitive terms and this form of 
expression certainly do away with all ground 
of dispute in relation to the kind of superin- 
tendency to be maintained. It is that system 
in its completeness which belonged to the 
Church and was in operation when the consti- 
tution was adopted. It was the superin tend- 
ency which these men had created, which they 
believed in and loved, and under whose admin- 
istration the Church they had planted had 
so wonderfully multiplied and grown — just 
this in every element of its being which 
w^as enshrined in the constitution of the 
Church. 

The entire structure of our government has 
been framed in harmony with this plan of 
our itinerant general superintendency. The 
government so framed has its departments and 
rules, its functions and powers, no one of 



64 The Episcopacy and 

which may be altered or changed by the Gen- 
eral Conference so as to do away episcopacy, 
or relieve the bishops of the Church from 
the duty and responsibility of faithfully exe- 
cuting "The Plan of our Itinerant General 
Superintendency." 



The General Conference. 65 



CHAPTER III. 

THE ELECTION OF PRESIDING ELDERS. 

THE proposition to elect the presiding elders 
by the Annual Conferences, instead of 
their being chosen and appointed by the 
bishop, stands very nearly related to the fore- 
going discussion. In considering this proposi- 
tion two questions are worthy of very careful 
attention : 

1. Has the General Conference authority to 
make the presiding elders elective by the An- 
nual Conferences? and 

2. Is this change in the method of appoint- 
ing the presiding elders expedient. 

The answer to the first question should be 
first determined, for if the General Conference 
has no authority to make the change then it 
may not make it, however desirable it may 
seem in itself considered. If in considerins: 
this question, however, it should be determined 

5 



66 The Episcopacy and 

that the General Conference is quite competent 
to make the change without reference to the 
concurring vote of the members of the Annual 
Conferences, there would still remain the very 
important question of the propriety and expe- 
diency of such change in the mode of choos- 
ing the presiding elders. 

In this chapter it is proposed to consider only 
the first of these questions : Has the General 
Conference authority to so change the Disci- 
pline ■ as to make the presiding elders elective 
by the Annual Conferences ? 

This is not a new question in our Church. It 
has been discussed in our Church papers, it 
has been agitated in the Annual Conferences, 
and in some form or other has been considered 
repeatedly by the General Conference ; no 
changes in this regard have been made ; the 
presiding elders are chosen and appointed as 
they have been from the beginning. 

The proposition to elect the presiding elders 
by the Annual Conferences has assumed vari- 
ous phases, and these do not all agree among 



The Geneeal Conference. 67 

themselves. The following are some of the 
plans which have been suggested : 

1. To leave the bishop to determine, as 
now, the number of presiding elders which, in 
his judgment, will be needed to superintend 
the work for the year, and then let the Annual 
Conferences respectively elect the required 
number, leaving the bishop to appoint them to 
the districts. 

2. Another plan which has been proposed is 
the same as the foregoing, except in this : that 
the bishop shall nominate to the Conference a 
given number of men, somewhat in excess of 
the number needed, and from among these 
nominees the Conference shall elect the num- 
ber required, and then those elected shall be 
appointed to the districts by the bishop. 

3. And still another plan has been proposed 
w^hich if carried out would give to the Annual 
Conferences respectively the right to nominate 
by ballot the presiding elders needed, giving 
to the bishop the right to refuse to appoint 
the person nominated in any given case, for 



68 The Episcopacy and 

reasons satisfactory to himself ; in whicli case 
the Conference shall nominate another in his 
stead, and so on till the number wanted be ob- 
tained, allowing the bishop to appoint the men 
so chosen to the districts according to his judg- 
ment. While this plan proposed simply to 
nominate the presiding elders, it was in fact a 
plan to elect them, giving the bishop authority 
to veto the action of the Conference. 

These various propositions were usually ac- 
companied by an additional provision giving to 
the presiding elders so chosen co-ordinate au- 
thority with the bishop in making the appoint- 
ments of the preachers; which co-ordination 
has been presented in three different aspects 
or after three different forms of action. One 
was to give to a majority of the presiding 
elders in any Conference the right to veto the 
action of the bishop ; another was to give the 
bishop the right to veto the action of the pre- 
siding elders; the one giving to the bishop 
authority to appoint the preachers subject to 
the approval of the presiding elders, the other 



The General Conference. 69 

giving to the presiding elders the authority to 
appoint the preachers subject to the approval 
of the bishop. And still another plan was to 
constitute the bishop and the presiding elders a 
stationing committee, giving to this committee 
authority by joint action to fix the appoint- 
ments of the preachers. 

In searching for the true meaning and intent 
of the third restrictive article, and especially in 
an inquiry concerning its relation to the mode 
of choosing and appointing presiding elders, if 
we were shut up to the mere phraseology of the 
rule itself we might possibly find it difficult to 
ascertain the exact scope and limit of the law, 
and especially so if the terms employed should 
be found to be at all indefinite or ambiguous. 
In this case, however, circumstances, and his- 
toiy contemporaneous with the adoption of the 
constitution, will aid us in our interpretation. 

In order to understand the case fully, it 
should be borne in mind that it was proposed 
to preserve three things sacred and inviolable 
in adopting the constitution for a delegated 



70 The Episcopacy and 

General Conference — the doctrines of the 
Church, the government of the Church, and 
the General Rules of the United Societies. 

To secure these ends, and to preserve, 
strengthen, and perpetuate the union of the 
Connection, the committee of fourteen mem- 
bers, two from each Conference, after the ma- 
turest deliberation, submitted in their report to 
the General Conference of 1808 a constitution 
for the creation and government of a delegated 
General Conference substantially as it is found 
in the Discipline of this day; and conspicu- 
ous among those provisions, which were not 
changed by the Conference one jot or tittle, 
stands the third restrictive article. As this is 
the only restriction relating to the form of 
government, it is fair to presume that this par- 
ticular article was framed with the deliberate 
purpose of preserving sacred and inviolable the 
government of the Church. After the report 
of the committee had been received, and had 
been under consideration for a day, it was laid 
on the table for a declared purpose, which pur- 



The General Conference. > 71 

pose is thus stated in the Journal of the Con- 
ference; namely, "Moved by Ezekiel Cooper 
and seconded by Joshua Wells, to postpone 
the present question to make room for the con- 
sideration of a new resolution as preparatory 
to the minds of the brethren to determine on 
the present subject. Carried." The Journal 
then proceeds thus : "Moved by Ezekiel Coop- 
er and seconded by Joshua Wells, the follow- 
ing resolution ; namely, 

^'Resolved J Tliat in the fifth section of the 
Discipline, after the question, ^By w^hom shall 
the presiding elders be chosen ? ' the answer 
shall be, ^Ans. 1st. Each Annual Conference 
respectively, without debate, shall annually 
choose by ballot its own presiding elders.' " 

This resolution, providing for an elective pre- 
siding eldership, was debated throughout two 
days, and on being put to vote was lost by a 
decided majority voting against it. ' 

After the defeat of this measure for an elect- 
ive presiding eldership, the first item in the 
report of the committee, which item provided 



72 The Episcopacy and 

that thereafter the General Conference should 
be a delegated body, was itseK defeated by a 
majority of seven. 

The defeat of this proposition produced 
serious dissatisfaction on the part of the 
preachers from the distant Conferences, on 
account of the great advantage every way 
which the then existing plan gave to the 
preachers and Conferences situated in the 
region round about where the General Confer- 
ence lield its sessions. At the very time this 
action was taken, defeating the plan for a dele- 
gated General Conference, the members of the 
Philadelphia and Baltimore Conferences consti- 
tuted a majority of the General Conference. 
When this action had been taken several 
preachers from the more remote Conferences 
withdrew, and made their aiTangements to 
return home. From this purpose they were, 
however, at length, and with much difficulty, 
dissuaded ; and in the course of a few days the 
matter was resumed, not by taking up the 
report of the committee, the first and funda- 



The General Conference. 78 

mental item of whicli had been defeated, but 
by individual members of the Genei'al Confer- 
ence moving the adoption of its items severally, 
until the V)liole was adopted substantially in 
the same form as it had been reported by the 
committee, and with a marvelous unanimity. 
No change whatever was made or proposed in 
relation to any one of the restrictive articles, 
but they were adopted and incorpoi'ated into 
the organic law of the delegated General Con- 
ference in the exact form and language in which 
they were at first reported. 

The value of this piece of history in this con- 
nection is obvious, as it determines beyond any 
reasonable doubt the exact relation which the 
third restrictive article sustains to the question 
of the power of a delegated General Conference 
to authorize the election of presiding elders by 
the Annual Conferences. 

Ezekiel Cooper, who had long favored the 
election of presiding elders by the Annual Con- 
ferences, in moving this resolution gave, as a 
special reason for introducing it at this partic- 



74 The Episcopacy and 

ular stage of the proceedings, that its determi- 
nation was important then, ^' as preparatory to 
the minds of the brethren to determine on the 
present subject^ What subject, pray? Evi- 
dently some subject contained in the report 
then under consideration. And what particu- 
lar part or provision of that report could have 
any possible bearing on the matter of the elec- 
tion of presiding elders by the Annual Confer- 
ences? Most obviously, only the third restrict- 
ive article. It was doubtless perceived that to 
adopt this restriction, so long as the duty of 
the bishops to choose and appoint the presid- 
ing elders constituted a part and parcel of the 
plan of our itinerant general superintendency, 
would put it out of the power of a delegated 
General Conference thereafter to make such a 
change in the plan without the concurrence of 
the Annual Conferences ; and it was for this 
reason that it became so important, to the satis- 
faction of the minds of the brethren desiring 
such change, that this question should be set- 
tled before this restrictive article should become 



The General Conference. 75 

operative as a fundamental law of the General 
Conference. If tlie authority to choose and 
appoint the presiding elders should be trans- 
ferred from the bishops to the Annual Confer- 
ences, then it would no longer constitute any 
part of the plan of our itinerant general super- 
intendency, and would not be shielded by this 
restriction; while, on the other hand, if the 
duty of choosing the presiding elders should 
continue to be a part of the plan of our super- 
intendency until the proposed restriction be- 
came operative, then this particular duty of the 
general superintendency would be embodied in 
the constitution, and must remain unchanged 
and unchangeable, except by the concuriing 
action of the General and Annual Conferences. 
There is no ground for a reasonable doubt 
that such was the judgment of the men who 
framed the organic lavv of the General Con- 
ference. 

Moreover, this action of the General Confer- 
ence, with its attending circumstances and his- 
tory, shows most conclusively the truth of 



76 The Episcopacy and 

what was mentioned in a former chapter, that 
the plan of our itinerant general superintend- 
ency, which the third restriction was framed 
to conserve and perpetuate, is to be found in 
the duties of the bishops as they were pre- 
scribed and authorized in the Discipline and 
established usages of the Church, in such form 
as they were understood and in operation in 
1808. The matter of choosing and appointing 
the presiding elders was only one of several 
duties enjoined upon the bishops, all of which 
stood on the same foundation, and in similar 
relations to the plan of our itinerant general 
superintendency, and it is fair to conclude, 
therefore, that the third restrictive article was 
adopted for the purpose of placing the then 
existing plan of superintendency beyond the 
control of a mere majority of the General Con- 
ference, and of reserving to the preachers in 
the several Annual Conferences, as the constit- 
uency of the General Conference, and as the 
source of all its authority, the right of being 
consulted concerning any proposed changes in 



The General Conference. 77 

the plan, and of consenting thereto before they 
should be accomplished. 

All this, and much more in the same line, 
may be very naturally and properly inferred 
from the official record of the General Confer- 
ence of 1808. And that no violence is done to 
the record by this interpretation, and, indeed, 
that it is the only true interpretation, is plenti- 
fully confirmed by the testimony of the now 
sainted Bishop McKendree, who was himself a 
member of the General Conference of 1808, 
and was also one of the committee of fourteen 
which framed and reported the constitution of 
which the third restrictive article is a part, 
and who was elected and ordained a bishop at 
this same General Conference. 

His words are these (I quote from the 
Life and Times of McKendree^ by Bishop 
Paine, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, vol. ii, pp. 367, 368) : "When the report 
of the committee which was appointed to draw 
up a constitution was before the General Con- 
ference, a member moved the postponement of 



78 The Episcopacy and 

that subject for tlie express purpose of bring- 
ing in a motion to authorize the Annual Con- 
ferences to elect the presiding elders. It was 
done ; and that body, which had as much right 
to introduce the proposed alteration as they had 
to form the constitution, took up the proposi- 
tion, amply discussed it, and rejected it. The 
friends of the proposed measure thought the 
constitution would put it out of the power of 
the delegated General Conference to eifect the 
desired change, and therefore proposed to 
make the alteration before the constitution was 
ratified. But the preachers preferred the old 
plan, and therefore rejected the motion. After 
twenty years' experience, and with the consti- 
tution fully before them, they refused to invest 
the Annual Conferences with power to elect 
the presiding elders, and at the moment of 
constituting the delegated General Conference 
deliberately confirmed it and continued it in 
the general superintendents, with whom it had 
been intrusted from the beginning. The presid- 
ing elders never were elected by the preachers, 



The General Conference. 79 

either in their Annual or General Conference 
capacity, but were from the commencement 
chosen by the general superintendents, with 
the consent of the preachers collectively, and 
this rule was ratified and confirmed by the 
same authority that constituted the delegated 
General Conference. Now, as the bishops do 
not derive this power from the delegated Gen- 
eral Conference, but from the preachers collect- 
ively, the delegated body can have no authority 
to take it from them. This can be effected 
by none but the body from which they re- 
ceived it." 

It will thus be seen that the official records of 
the General Conference of 1808, and the more 
amplified, definite, and complete statement of 
Bishop McKendree, whose opportunity to know 
all the facts in the case, as well as his high 
Christian character, entitle his account to the 
fullest belief, are in the completest accord, and 
are absolutely conclusive as to the intent and 
meaning of the third restrictive article in its 
relation to the right of a delegated General 



80 The Episcopacy and 

Conference to authorize tlie Annual Confer- 
ences to elect the presiding elders. The men 
of 1808 who enacted this restriction did so 
believing that it would, and intending that it 
should, prohibit the delegated General Confer- 
ence from attempting to authorize or empower 
the Annual Conferences to elect the presiding 
elders. 

In 1812 and again in 1816 the same subject 
was introduced, but met with no better success 
than in 1808. 

In 1820 the subject was again introduced by 
a motion to so change the Discipline that the 
answer to the question, "By whom are the pre- 
siding elders to be chosen?" should read, "By 
the Annual Conference." After considerable 
debate this motion was laid on the table. The 
next day it was tnken up and discussed, and 
the day following it was laid on the table 
till the next morning. At the same time the 
following resolution was offered ; namely, 
'^ Hesolved^ That the bishop or president of 
each Annual Conference shall ascertain the 



The General Conference. 81 

number of presiding elders wanted, and shall 
nominate tliree times the number ; out of which 
nomination the Conference shall, without de- 
bate, elect the presiding elders." This resolu- 
tion was also laid on the table till the next 
day. In due time the subject was taken from 
the table, and after considerable discussion it 
was again laid on the table. 

At this stage of the preceedings it was 
"moved that three of the members who desire 
an election of presiding elders, and an equal 
number of those who are opposed to any 
change of our present plan, be appointed a 
committee to confer with the bishops and 
bishop-elect upon that subject, and report 
whether any, and, if any, what, alteration might 
be made to conciliate the Welshes of the brethren 
on this subject, and report the next day." The 
next day the committee reported, and the Confer- 
ence adopted the following resolutions ; namely, 

" Resolved^ That whenever in any Annual 
Conference there shall be a vacancy or va- 
cancies in the office of presiding elder in 

6 



S2 The Episcopacy and 

consequence of his period of service of four 
years having expired, or the bishop wishing to 
remove any presiding elder, or by death, resig- 
nation, or otherwise, the bishop or president of 
the Conference, having ascertained the number 
wanted from any of these causes, shall nomi- 
nate three times the number, out of which the 
Conference shall elect by ballot without debate 
the number wanted ; provided, when there is 
more than one wanted not more three at a 
time shall be nominated, nor more than one at 
a time elected ; provided, also, that in the case of 
any vacancy or vacancies in the oiSce of pre- 
siding elder in the interval of any Annual Con- 
ference the bishop shall have authority to fill 
said vacancy or vacancies until the next ensu- 
ing Annual Conference. 

" Hesolved, That the presiding elders be and 
are hereby made the advisory council of the 
bishop or president of the Conference in sta- 
tioning the preachers." 

These were called coiv promise resolutions, 
inasmuch as they did not propose all that was 



The General Conference. 83 

desired on the part of those in favor of an 
elective presiding eldership ; and yet they con- 
ceded more than those opposed to the measure 
deemed desirable. So there were concessions 
from both sides. Those in favor of electing 
presiding elders preferred this to nothing, 
while on the other hand there were men who 
consented to this plan as it did, in effect, still 
leave the selection of the presiding elders to 
the bishop, as no one was eligible to election 
whom he did not nominate ; and having nomi- 
nated three for a vacancy the Conference was 
obliged to elect one of these three nominees, 
and the presiding elders thus chosen, though 
an advisory council of the bishop, were to 
have no authority in fixing their own appoint- 
ments nor the appointments of the other 
preachers. 

Dr. Emory (afterward Bishop Emory), who 
was of the committee which reported these res- 
olutions, and who was one of the most earnest 
as well as one of the most able advocates of 
an elective presiding eldership, speaking of 



84 The General Conference. 

tlie scope and significance of these resolutions, 
says: 

" We are aware, indeed, that many will be 
surprised that those who wished any change 
could have been contented with so trifling a 
modification of the existing order of things as 
was to be effected by these resolutions. For 
you will remark that the right of nomination 
was reserved to the bishops, and that a nomina- 
tion so very circumscribed, out of which the 
Conferences were obliged to select, but also, 
that after such selection the whole control of 
the administration would still have been in the 
hands of the bishops ; because it was in their 
power still, at any time after the Annual Con- 
ference, if circumstances in their judgment 
required it, to remove any presiding elder, and 
to fill the vacancy occasioned by such removal 
until the ensuing Annual Conference." See 
Life of Emory ^ p. 155. 

Indeed, it was held by some that this provis- 
ion did not really interfere with the duty en- 
joined on the bishops to choose the presiding 



The General Conference. 85 

elders, inasmucli as no one could be elected 
by the Conference whom the bishop did not 
name for the office, and that in this way and 
to this extent the bishop would in fact choose 
the presiding elders ; and that such a mode of 
selection would not therefore conflict with the 
established plan of our itinerant genei'al super- 
intendency. And it was on this ground that 
Bishop George held that this measure was not 
in violation of the constitution. In writing to 
Bishop McKendree on this subject he says : 
^^ Had the resolutions given the power to the 
Annual Conferences to elect at pleasure, or 
nominate indefinitely to this mode of obtain- 
ing presiding elders, my opinion would have 
been that such a mode of proceeding would 
have been an unconstitutional transfer of power. 
But when the bishop has the right of nomina- 
tion, and the Annual Conference the rif^ht to 
sanction that nomination, I cannot comprehend 
any radical change in the government." See 
Life and Times of McKendree^ by Bishop 
Paine, vol. ii, p. 382. 



86 The Episcopacy and 

At the same time there were others of the 
opinion that even this very moderate measure 
was, nevertheless, in com]3lete violation of the 
third restrictive article ; that it did infract the 
plan of our superintendency ; holding that 
according to that plan the authority to choose 
and appoint the presiding elders must remain 
in the episcopacy of the Church, absolute and 
entire, until otherwise provided by the concur- 
rent action of the General and Annual Confer- 
ences. This was the opinion of all the bishops 
at that time except Bishop George, as it was 
also the opinion of the ablest men of the 
Church outside of the episcopacy. Conspicu- 
ous among these was Joshua Soule, who drafted 
the constitution creating a delegated General 
Conference and prescribing and limiting the 
scope of its powers, and who therefore may 
well be supposed to understand the purpose of 
the instrument and the significance of its lan- 
guage. He had been elected to the office of a 
bishop by the General Conference of 1820 
before these compromise resolutions were 



The General Conference. 87 

adopted. After their adoption lie communicat- 
ed to the General Conference his judgment that 
the resolutions were in conflict with the organic 
law of the Chui'ch, and that he must therefore 
decline the office to which he had been chosen. 
He thereupon tendered his resignation, and it 
was accepted. After this proceeding the Con- 
ference, without rescinding the resolutions, sus- 
pended them for four years, or until the meet- 
ing of the next General Conference. This 
would afford time for matnre consideration of 
the objections made to these resolutions on the 
ground of their alleged unconstitutionality, 
and also afford an opportunity to consult the 
Annual Conferences on the subject. 

Concerning this proceeding, and especially 
concerning the suspension of these resolutions, 
Bishop McKendree, in a communication ad- 
dressed to the several Annual Conferences, 
says: "Many of the preachers who voted in 
favor of the above-mentioned resolutions at the 
last General Conference saw that they had 
exceeded the bounds of the restrictions under 



88 The Episcopacy and 

wliicli they acted, and they suspended the opera- 
tion of the resolutions for four years." See 
Zife and Times of McKendree^ by Bishop 
Paine, vol. i, pp. 455, 456. 

In the judgment of Bishop McKendree, and 
in the judgment of many other great and good 
men, this action was clearly unconstitutional, 
and if allowed to stand would establish a prec- 
edent which might lead not only to the utter 
subversion of our Church economy, but to the 
overthrow of the rights of the ministry and of 
the membership of the Church, which another 
of the restrictions was framed to conserve and 
protect. Concerning this particular measure it 
Avas argued, with force, that if the General Con- 
ference could go thus far certainly it might go 
further and take away the right or authority to 
nominate presiding elders likewise, and there- 
by introduce presiding elders into their office 
independently of Wi^ bishop's appointment, 
nomination, or control, and in the issue destroy 
our itinerant episcopal form of government. It 
was further argued, and with equal force, that 



The Geneeal Conference. 89 

''the authority that can take away one part of 
the executive power from the bishops may 
take away another, and another, and another, 
until the episcopacy is done away and the plan 
of our itinerant genei'al superintendency en- 
tirely destroyed." 

After settinof forth somewhat at leno^th his 
reasons for believing that the suspended reso- 
lutions w^ere in their spirit and purpose in con- 
flict with the constitution, and conceded a 
principle destructive of the limitations and 
restrictions imposed on a delegated General 
Conference, Bishop IMcKendree then adds in 
his Journal a statement of his purpose in lay- 
ing the subject before the Annual Conferences, 
thus : ". . . intending if a majority of the An- 
nual Conferences w^as of different opinion to 
submit to their Judgment as a legal decision, 
and upon their authority admit, recommend, 
and act according to the provisions of those 
resolutions ; but, in the event that my opinion 
should be confirmed, to advise the Conferences 
to recommend their adoption by the ensuing 



90 The Episcopacy and 

General Conference, and thereby introduce 
them conformably to the constitution." ^'The 
address," continues the bishop, " was first pre- 
sented to those Conferences most inimical to 
the proposed change, and it was satisfactorily 
ascertained that seven of the twelve Confer- 
ences judged the suspended resolutions uncon- 
stitutional ; and yet, for peace' sake, although 
they were not considered by them an improve- 
ment, they authorized the ensuing General 
Conference, as far as they could do so, to 
adopt them without alteration. But the five 
other Conferences, in which the most steady 
friends and most powerful advocates of the 
proposed change were found, refused to act on 
the address, and thereby prevented its adop- 
tion in a constitutional way, and of course set in 
for another vigorous contest at the next Gen- 
eral Conference." See Life and Times of 
McKendree^ by Bishop Paine, vol. i, pp. 
439, 440. 

It is very plain that throughout this unpleas- 
ant controversy Bishop McKendree was not 



The General Conference. 91 

seeking to maintain the authority of the epis- 
copacy to choose the presiding elders, else he 
would not have used his great influence, in an 
effort as persistent as it was earnest, to per- 
suade the Annual Conferences to aid in giving 
legal force to the resolutions authorizing the 
Annual Conferences to choose them ; but he 
believed, and his conviction was deep and 
abiding, that the change contended for was 
subversive of the constitution, and if success- 
ful might be made a precedent for a most fear- 
ful train of revolutionary measures. 

In order to a proper understanding of the 
action of the General Conference of 1824 on 
this subject, it must be borne in mind that by 
a rule of that body it was necessary that any 
important measure in order to its passage must 
be sustained in three several votes. Though 
this rule of parliamentary proceeding does not 
appear in the Journal of the General Confer- 
ence, yet I have the authority of Bishop Paine, 
who was the chairman of the committee having 
the matter in charge, that such was the rule, 



92 The Episcopacy and 

and any one reading the Journal will see that 
the Conference acted in harmony with such a 
rule. Having premised this, I will now say 
that : 

In the General Conference of 1824, the sus- 
pended resolutions being under consideration, 
the following preamble and resolution were 
offered and sustained ; namely, 

" Whereas, a majority of the Annual Confer- 
ences have judged the resolutions making the 
presiding elders elective, and which were passed 
and then suspended at the last General Confer- 
ence, unconstitutional ; therefore, 

^^ He-solved, That the said resolutions are 
not of authority, and shall not be carried into 
effect." 

At a later stage of the proceedings, and near 
the close of the Conference, a motion was made 
to suspend the rules, so as to take up the reso- 
lution which had been sustained once or twice 
already, according to the Journal, but the mo- 
tion was lost. Afterward it was claimed by 
the minority that if the members of the Gen- 



The General Conference. 93 

eral Conference wlio were absent when tlie 
vote on the foregoing resolution was taken had 
been present, and had all voted with the minor- 
ity against the resolution, it would not have 
been carried, and that therefore the vote by 
which the resolution had been sustained did 
not necessarily express with certainty the judg- 
ment of the Conference on the subject; where- 
upon the rules were suspended to allow an 
action by which the suspended resolutions 
were referred to the next General Conference 
as unfinished business. 

In 1828 the suspended resolutions came 
before the General Conference in a report 
from the committee on ^'unfinished busi- 
ness," when the whole matter was disposed 
of by adopting the following resolution ; 
namely, 

^'Besolved, That the resolutions commonly 
called the suspended resolutions, rendering the 
presiding elders elective, etc., and which were 
referred to this Conference by the last General 
Conference as unfinished business, and reported 



94 The Episcopacy and 

to us at this Conference, be and tlie same are 
hereby rescinded and made void." 

Thus closes the histoiy of the only resolu- 
tions ever adopted by the General Conference 
providing in any manner, or to any extent, for 
the election of presiding elders by the Annual 
Conferences — resolutions which left the right 
of nomination in the bishops, and required the 
Conference in every case to elect one of the 
three nominated, and then left the entire admin- 
istration within the authority of the bishops, 
w^here it had been from the begcinninp: ; resolu- 
lions which, nevertheless, wT.re suspended by 
the same body which adopted them, and for 
the reason, as stated by Bishop McKendree, that 
many who had voted for them saw afterward 
that they had transcended the bounds of the 
restrictions ; resolutions which were afterward 
solemnly adjudged and declared by a majority 
of the Annual Conferences to be unconstitu- 
tional, and then by the next succeeding Gen- 
eral Conference were declared to be of no 
authority, and that they should not be carried 



The General Conference. 95 

into effect, because of their unconstitutionality ; 
and finally, by the second General Conference 
after the one by which they were adopted and 
then suspended, they were absolutely rescinded 
and declared null and void. 

Now from all this it would seem that if any 
question relating to the constitutional powers 
and prerogatives of the delegated General Con- 
ference can be settled by the action of our 
ecclesiastical tribunals, then it has been plenti- 
fully determined that the delegated General 
Conference may not of its own motion and 
by its sole action authorize the Annual Confer- 
ences to elect the presiding elders. 

The conclusion of the whole matter is just 
this ; nothing less, nothing more, nothing differ- 
ent : The (yeneral Conference has no right to 
authorize or empower an Annual Conference 
to elect the presiding elders ; nor has it the 
right to give to the presiding elders co-oidinate 
power with the bishops in making the appoint- 
ments, nor to make them and the bishops a 
committee to station the preachers. The as- 



96 The Episcopacy and 

sumption of such authority is forbidden by the 
third restrictive article, and would divest the 
episcopacy of an important element of its 
power to fulfill its duties as they are prescribed 
and enjoined in 

" The Plan of our Itinerant General 
s uperintendency." 



THE END, 



